“How is that unparliamentary?”: The metapragmatics of ‘unparliamentary’ language in the Australian Federal Parliament

• Examines unparliamentary language through a metapragmatic lens. • Analyses occurrences of ‘unparliamentary’ across the entire Australian Federal Hansard. • Indicates that ‘unparliamentary’ language goes beyond what is prescribed in Standing Orders. • Demonstrates how to iteratively draw on computational and interpretive methods of analysis. Parliamentary discourse is highly regulated, leading to an almost blanket avoidance of explicit vulgarity or overtly offensive language. Yet it is nevertheless replete with examples in which the language used by members is construed as ‘unparliamentary’. This study examines the occurrence of ‘unparliamentary’ as a metapragmatic label across the entire corpus of the Australian Federal Hansard from 1901 to 2024, and probes how it can be used to implement specific metapragmatic acts (i.e. doing something through labelling talk as ‘unparliamentary’), as well as how it can also become an object of metapragmatic discourse (i.e. a topic of debate in its own right). In so doing we explore how the boundaries of offensive, objectionable or otherwise disorderly language use in parliamentary discourse are established, maintained, contested, as well as change and evolve over time. As the Australian Federal Hansard constitutes a relatively large corpus of more than 900 million tokens, the study draws in a dialogic and iterative manner from both computational and interpretive methods of analysis. This dialogic form of analysis indicates that what is encompassed by the notion of ‘unparliamentary’ is broader and more complex than what is prescribed in the Standing Orders and associated codes of practice of the Australian Federal Parliament.